Mapping the Hyperliquid Ecosystem: Key Protocols and the Most Promising Projects

Hyperliquid has evolved from a niche on‑chain derivatives venue into one of the most important infrastructure layers in decentralized finance. What began as a high‑performance perpetual futures exchange is now a unified Layer‑1 plus EVM stack hosting a growing ecosystem of lending markets, liquid staking, spot trading, structured products, and permissionless derivatives tied to both crypto and real‑world assets.

By late 2025, Hyperliquid commands the majority of open interest in decentralized perpetuals, supports billions in total value locked (TVL), and has attracted a roster of native protocols that treat its order book and unified state as a core building block rather than just another venue to plug into. At the same time, it faces intensifying competition from new derivatives‑focused chains and must navigate security incidents, token unlocks, and regulatory pressure.

This article maps the emerging Hyperliquid ecosystem, focusing on:

• The architectural foundations that differentiate Hyperliquid.
• Key on‑chain and market metrics that describe its current state.
• The most promising native protocols and how they fit together.
• Competitive dynamics versus other perp DEXes and DeFi chains.
• Risks and negative scenarios that could derail growth.
• Bull, base, and bear trajectories for the ecosystem over the coming years.

The analysis is anchored in the 2025 research snapshot and does not project specific numbers or events beyond what is documented there.

1. Fundamentals: From Perp DEX to Unified DeFi Infrastructure

Hyperliquid’s key shift in 2025 is the move from “just” a perpetuals exchange to a full‑stack blockchain with its own smart contract layer and native DeFi primitives.

1.1 Core Design: HyperCore + HyperEVM in a Unified State

Hyperliquid runs a unified state machine that combines:

• HyperCore – a high‑throughput central limit order book (CLOB) engine for perpetual and spot markets.
• HyperEVM – a fully EVM‑compatible smart contract layer that shares the same state as HyperCore.

There are no bridges or asynchronous messages between them. Smart contracts can read and write directly to the state that powers the order book.

Key components:

• Custom L1 with HyperBFT consensus
  Hyperliquid runs its own Layer‑1 using a bespoke Byzantine Fault Tolerant consensus (HyperBFT), targeting sub‑second finality (around 0.2 seconds) and throughput of roughly 200,000 orders per second. The system is tuned for order‑book trading, where latency and deterministic execution are central.

• CoreWriter (write precompiles)
  Introduced in mid‑2025, CoreWriter lets HyperEVM contracts write directly to HyperCore. Previously, contracts could only read order book state. With CoreWriter, vaults, strategies, and structured products can place and manage orders in real time, closing the loop for true programmability around the CLOB.

• Unified state instead of bridges
  Because both layers share state, developers avoid cross‑chain friction: delayed finality, extra trust assumptions, and fragmented liquidity. A protocol on HyperEVM can treat HyperCore’s liquidity as genuinely native.

This contrasts with ecosystems that:

• Run EVM on top of generic L1s using AMM‑centric liquidity, or
• Use separate app‑chains for derivatives and rely on bridges for composability.

Hyperliquid is built as a derivatives‑first chain with programmable access to its own order book baked into the base layer.

1.2 Economic Model and Revenue Distribution

Hyperliquid’s economics are driven by derivatives trading and liquidity provision:

• High revenue base
  In 2025, the protocol generated annualized revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The research snapshot points to over $800 million in annualized revenue and buybacks exceeding $715 million over the year, illustrating the scale of activity.

• Revenue returned to users
  A large share of revenue is recycled back to participants through:

  • Buybacks of the native token HYPE.
  • Yield paid to Hyperliquidity Provider (HLP) vault depositors, historically around 6–8% APY.

• Incentives for builders via HIP‑3
  HIP‑3 introduces a model where market deployers stake HYPE and capture a portion of fees from the markets they launch. This:

  • Locks up HYPE supply.
  • Creates a recurring revenue stream for builders and market operators.
  • Ties protocol growth directly to token demand.

Trading generates fees, fees fund HYPE buybacks and LP yield, and those returns attract more capital and trading. The loop is tight and highly sensitive to trading activity.

1.3 Strategic Expansion: HyperEVM and Real‑World Assets

The launch of HyperEVM in early 2025, and its rapid growth to roughly $2 billion in TVL within months, marks a strategic pivot:

• From single venue to multi‑protocol ecosystem
  Hyperliquid is now the base layer for lending, liquid staking, spot trading, structured products, and more-not just a derivatives venue.

• Permissionless markets via HIP‑3
  HIP‑3 allows anyone staking enough HYPE to deploy new perpetual markets on:

  • Crypto assets.
  • Equity indices and single‑name stocks (e.g., Tesla, Apple, Nvidia).
  • Commodities and other specialized assets.

• Real‑world asset (RWA) angle
  Early HIP‑3 equity markets quickly reached tens to hundreds of millions in daily volume, signaling strong demand for on‑chain exposure to traditional assets and positioning Hyperliquid as a bridge between crypto and traditional derivatives.

• Institutional signaling
  The research notes partnerships and integrations with traditional finance players such as BlackRock and Stripe, indicating that Hyperliquid sits on the radar of larger institutions exploring tokenized assets and on‑chain trading rails.

These shifts support the view that Hyperliquid is evolving from a perp DEX into a generalized, high‑performance on‑chain exchange layer with a DeFi ecosystem forming around it.

2. On‑Chain and Market Metrics: Hyperliquid in Late 2025

The late‑2025 data gives a sense of both Hyperliquid’s scale and how its position is changing.

2.1 Ecosystem‑Level Metrics

Key metrics from the research snapshot:

Highlights:

• Scale and speed
  Growing HyperEVM from roughly $50 million to ~$2 billion in TVL within months, without heavy external incentives, is unusual. Access to deep CLOB liquidity clearly pulls in capital and builders.

• Perps as the engine
  Perpetual futures remain the dominant product, both by volume and by economic contribution.

• Open interest vs. volume share
  Hyperliquid’s share of aggregate perp volume has fallen due to new competitors, but it still holds the majority of decentralized perp open interest. Open interest is harder to fake and better reflects “serious” trading and sticky liquidity than raw volume numbers.

2.2 Protocol‑Level TVL Distribution

TVL is concentrated in a few key components:

Implications:

• Liquid staking as primary HYPE sink
  Kinetiq’s TVL shows that staking and restaking HYPE is a central use case. Its LST (kHYPE) then becomes base collateral across the ecosystem.

• Lending as the second pillar
  Morpho and HyperLend together hold close to $1 billion in TVL, underscoring strong demand for borrowing, leverage, and yield around HYPE and bridged assets.

• Concentration and composability
  Concentrated TVL raises systemic risk if any major protocol fails. At the same time, these large protocols become shared building blocks that make new strategies easier to assemble.

2.3 Stablecoin and Funding Infrastructure

Stablecoins underpin most derivatives and lending activity:

• USDC dominance
  About $5.077 billion in stablecoins sit on Hyperliquid, with USDC making up roughly 96.22%. This mirrors broader DeFi, where USDC is often the default collateral.

• USDH as a strategic push
  Hyperliquid is promoting a native stablecoin, USDH, to recapture yield that currently accrues to external issuers. USDH is still early; its eventual share will matter for Hyperliquid’s long‑term economics.

• HLP and funding flows
  The HLP vault, at around $372 million TVL and mid‑single‑digit yields, is a meaningful but not dominant part of the funding stack, acting as a system‑level liquidity pool earning fees from trading and funding.

2.4 Token Dynamics and Unlocks

HYPE ties together governance, staking, and HIP‑3 market deployment:

• Market cap and volatility
  With a market cap around $14.4 billion and price near $43, HYPE has already seen sharp swings, including a ≈40% drawdown from its 2025 highs.

• Unlock overhang
  A major unlock of roughly $314 million worth of HYPE in late November 2025 weighed on the token. Such events add supply and can pressure price if demand does not keep up.

• Buybacks as balance
  Hyperliquid has executed buybacks totaling roughly $645–715 million over 2025, partially offsetting new supply and signaling long‑term confidence.

Large unlocks, sizable buybacks, and HIP‑3 staking requirements create a token environment where supply, demand, and protocol usage are tightly coupled.

3. Ecosystem Architecture and Protocol Landscape

The Hyperliquid ecosystem can be viewed as a stack:

1. Base infrastructure – HyperCore (CLOB engine) and HyperEVM (smart contracts).
2. Bridging and tokenization – Unit and canonical asset bridges.
3. Core DeFi primitives – liquid staking, lending, and spot markets.
4. Structured products and yield – vaults, index products, and automated strategies.
5. Permissionless markets and RWAs – HIP‑3 perps, including equities and indices.

3.1 HyperCore: The Trading Engine

HyperCore is the central trading venue:

• Central limit order book
  It uses an order‑book model, closer to centralized exchanges than AMMs. This suits derivatives and high‑frequency trading, where depth and tight spreads are essential.

• Perps and spot
  HyperCore is home to both perp and spot markets. Perps dominate, but spot markets have gained traction, especially after Unit’s launch.

• Risk and liquidations
  HyperCore houses the risk engine that tracks margin, liquidations, and funding. This is central to system stability and shapes how lending and structured products manage exposure.

Because HyperCore is integrated at the consensus level, its performance and reliability define the baseline for the whole ecosystem.

3.2 HyperEVM: Smart Contracts With Direct Liquidity Access

HyperEVM extends what developers can build:

• EVM compatibility
  Developers can deploy Solidity contracts with standard tooling. Within months of launch, more than 8,000 contracts and 340,000 accounts were created.

• Direct hooks into HyperCore
  With CoreWriter, contracts can both read order book state and write to it. This enables:

  • Automated trading and market‑making strategies.
  • On‑chain structured products that actively hedge or rebalance.
  • Lending protocols that adjust parameters using real‑time market data.

• Organic traction
  HyperEVM’s climb to around $2 billion in TVL with limited incentives contrasts with many L1s/L2s that leaned heavily on liquidity mining or airdrops.

Practically, HyperEVM is a programmable layer wrapped around a CEX‑grade trading engine, which remains rare in DeFi.

3.3 Unit: Bridging and Asset Tokenization

Unit serves as the canonical bridge and tokenization system:

• Threshold signature guardians
  Independent guardians use threshold signatures to manage deposits and withdrawals for assets like BTC, ETH, and SOL, mitigating single‑custodian risk.

• Native spot markets
  Once bridged, assets trade on HyperCore spot markets. BTC and ETH spot quickly reached liquidity and depth rivaling or surpassing many centralized exchanges and even overtook HYPE in trading volume shortly after launch.

• Institutional‑grade design
  The system is architected to meet higher security and transparency standards, which matters for larger allocators.

Unit pulls blue‑chip assets into Hyperliquid, supplies collateral for lending and perps, and acts as a gateway for cross‑chain and institutional capital.

3.4 HIP‑3: Permissionless Market Creation

HIP‑3 is the framework for expanding Hyperliquid’s asset universe:

• Staking requirement
  Deployers must stake 500,000 HYPE to launch markets. This:

  • Filters out low‑effort, low‑quality markets.
  • Aligns operators with the protocol’s long‑term health.
  • Creates structural demand for HYPE.

• Fee split
  Deployers earn 50% of trading fees from their markets, making successful markets highly lucrative relative to the stake.

• Slashing and governance
  Validators can slash stakes for manipulative or malicious behavior, adding a governance layer to market creation and ongoing maintenance.

• Expansion beyond crypto
  Early HIP‑3 markets for equities like Tesla, Apple, Nvidia, and Google quickly reached $50–300 million in daily volume, demonstrating demand for on‑chain equity exposure.

HIP‑3 shifts Hyperliquid from a curated exchange into a platform where specialized operators can build and monetize their own markets on top of the shared engine.

4. Prominent Projects in the Hyperliquid Ecosystem

Several native protocols already look like long‑term pillars.

4.1 Kinetiq: Native Liquid Staking for HYPE

Kinetiq is the dominant liquid staking protocol on Hyperliquid:

• How it works
  Users stake HYPE and receive kHYPE, which:

  • Accrues staking rewards.
  • Can be used as collateral or deployed in DeFi strategies on HyperEVM.

• TVL and trajectory
  Kinetiq has amassed around $850 million to $1.061 billion in TVL since its mid‑2025 launch. That pace reflects strong appetite for staking yield and confidence in Hyperliquid’s trajectory.

• Integrations
  kHYPE is accepted as collateral in lending markets like HyperLend and Morpho and in yield and structured products. Each new integration makes kHYPE more useful, which drives more staking and deepens protocol security and revenue.

Kinetiq turns HYPE from a static governance/staking asset into liquid, productive collateral circulating throughout the ecosystem, and is already systemically important.

4.2 HyperLend: Native Lending With Conservative Risk

HyperLend provides core lending and borrowing:

• Usage
  HyperLend manages around $394–406 million in TVL, with approximately $214 million in active borrows. It has generated around $5.71 million in annualized fees, including roughly $468,000 in the prior 30 days at the time of the snapshot.

• Risk stance
  HyperLend uses conservative parameters, including:

  • Around 40% loan‑to‑value ratios on key assets-lower than many Ethereum‑based markets.
  • Cautious collateral and liquidation thresholds to reduce the risk of cascading liquidations.

• Target users
  Its settings and emphasis on risk management make it attractive for more conservative users and potential institutional participants.

• Composability
  HyperLend accepts kHYPE and other assets as collateral, serving as a main venue for levering staked positions and deploying credit across the ecosystem.

HyperLend acts as a relatively “safe” base money market, which is vital for systemic robustness.

4.3 Morpho and Other Lending Primitives

Morpho adds a complementary lending layer:

• TVL and role
  Morpho holds about $523 million in TVL. It typically operates as an optimization layer around existing money markets, and on Hyperliquid it provides an alternative venue with different rate dynamics and risk trade‑offs.

• Credit market diversification
  Multiple lending protocols:

  • Reduce single‑point‑of‑failure risk.
  • Allow distinct collateral sets and interest rate models.
  • Cater to different user segments and strategies.

Together, Morpho and HyperLend form the backbone of credit on Hyperliquid.

4.4 Felix and Yield / Structured Products

Felix, with around $251 million in TVL, represents protocols building:

• Yield‑focused strategies.
• Structured products with options‑like payoffs or basis trades.
• Automated strategies that tap directly into HyperCore’s order book and funding markets.

While the snapshot does not detail Felix’s exact mechanics, its size indicates that:

• Users are willing to entrust significant capital to automated strategies on Hyperliquid.
• There is growing demand for products that abstract away active trading.

These protocols increase capital efficiency, drive additional volume and open interest on HyperCore, and broaden the yield landscape for users.

4.5 HIP‑3 Market Operators and RWA Perps

Some of the most strategically relevant “projects” are HIP‑3 market operators rather than traditional DeFi apps:

• Equity and index perps
  Markets for Tesla, Apple, Google, Nvidia, and similar names quickly reached daily volumes in the tens to hundreds of millions, confirming demand for 24/7 on‑chain equity exposure.

• Specialized markets
  Over time, HIP‑3 supports:

  • Commodities.
  • Volatility indices.
  • Sector baskets or thematic indices.

• Operator economics
  With 50% of market fees flowing to deployers, successful HIP‑3 markets can become substantial businesses, justifying the 500,000 HYPE stake.

HIP‑3 operators, especially those focused on RWAs and non‑crypto instruments, are likely to be among the most consequential ecosystem participants.

5. Competitors and Alternatives

Hyperliquid sits in a crowded field of decentralized derivatives platforms and high‑performance DeFi chains.

5.1 Perp DEX Competitors: Aster and Lighter

The research highlights two notable challengers:

• Aster
  A new platform that rapidly captured perp volume, contributing to Hyperliquid’s volume share sliding from roughly 70% in early 2025 to about 8% by October 2025. Aster’s rise points to strong trader appetite for alternatives and, likely, aggressive incentives or distinct features.

• Lighter
  Another perp‑focused venue emphasizing low fees and tight pricing, with its own risk and margin design.

Yet Hyperliquid still holds about 62% of decentralized perp open interest. This suggests:

• Incentive‑driven or short‑term volume is more footloose.
• Larger or stickier traders still favor Hyperliquid’s depth and execution.

The split between who “wins” on volume and who “wins” on open interest is a crucial nuance.

5.2 Broader DeFi and L1/L2 Alternatives

Beyond perp‑specific rivals, Hyperliquid competes with:

• Ethereum and major L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, etc.)
  These host established perp DEXes (GMX, dYdX v3, Perpetual Protocol) and broad DeFi stacks. However:

  • Many rely on AMM or virtual AMM models rather than native CLOBs.
  • Latency and throughput are generally lower than Hyperliquid’s custom L1.

• App‑chains and Cosmos‑based derivatives platforms
  Some derivatives DEXes run as standalone chains, but:

  • They often lack Hyperliquid’s unified state and tight EVM integration.
  • Liquidity is fragmented across chains and bridges.

• Centralized exchanges (CEXes)
  While off‑chain, CEXes set user expectations for product range, performance, and risk controls.

Hyperliquid’s ambition is to deliver CEX‑like performance and breadth with on‑chain transparency and composability.

5.3 Differentiation and Strategic Moat

Hyperliquid’s main points of differentiation are:

• Unified CLOB + EVM state
  Few platforms offer a shared state between a CLOB engine and an EVM layer, giving Hyperliquid a structural edge for complex, composable financial products.

• Derivatives‑tuned performance
  Sub‑second finality and high throughput are implemented specifically to serve order‑book derivatives, not just generic transactions.

• HIP‑3’s permissionless but curated market model
  The combination of substantial staking, fee sharing, and slashing blends open access with strong economic and governance checks.

• Relatively organic ecosystem growth
  HyperEVM’s TVL growth with limited external incentives hints at a more durable user and developer base than ecosystems driven mainly by emissions.

These are meaningful, but competitors can still respond with similar architectures, heavier incentives, or better UX. Hyperliquid’s long‑term moat depends on how quickly it can turn its architectural edge into products and integrations that are hard to copy.

6. Risks and Negative Scenarios

Hyperliquid faces a wide range of tangible risks.

6.1 Security and Market Integrity

Security and market integrity remain front‑and‑center:

• POPCAT manipulation attack
  In March 2025, a $4.9 million attack involving manipulation of the POPCAT market exposed:

  • Vulnerability of thin or newly listed markets.
  • The need for circuit breakers, listing standards, and real‑time monitoring.

• HIP‑3 abuse potential
  Permissionless market creation raises risks of:

  • Illiquid or manipulated markets.
  • Inadequate oversight of deployers.
  • User harm and reputational damage from bad markets.

• Core and protocol bugs
  HyperBFT, HyperCore, HyperEVM, and major DeFi protocols such as Kinetiq and HyperLend are all complex. Bugs or design flaws could trigger loss of funds or systemic instability.

As the ecosystem grows, the attack surface expands, and so does the need for audits, testing, and clear incident response processes.

6.2 Competitive Pressure and Volume Fragmentation

New venues introduce competitive and structural risks:

• Fragmented liquidity
  As traders and liquidity providers split across platforms:

  • Spreads can widen.
  • Slippage may rise.
  • Arbitrage becomes more complex.

• Incentive wars
  Competitors can deploy aggressive token rewards to draw users, pulling volume away and potentially forcing Hyperliquid to respond with its own incentives.

• Innovation race
  If Hyperliquid slows in product development or UX improvements, rivals may match its performance and outpace it in specific niches.

6.3 Tokenomics and Unlock Risk

HYPE’s design cuts both ways:

• Large unlocks
  Events like the $314 million unlock in November 2025:

  • Add significant sellable supply.
  • Can undercut price if demand is weak.

• Buyback dependence
  Buybacks depend on strong revenue. If volumes fall, buyback capacity shrinks just as unlocks continue.

• HIP‑3 concentration
  The 500,000 HYPE stake:

  • Concentrates market deployment power among large holders.
  • May limit the diversity of market operators.
  • Could fuel governance friction if a small set of actors dominate key markets.

Persistent token price weakness would reduce the appeal of staking, HIP‑3 deployment, and ecosystem participation.

6.4 Regulatory and Compliance Risk

Hyperliquid operates across several sensitive regulatory fronts:

• High‑leverage perps
  Perpetuals and leverage are under scrutiny in many regions. Authorities can:

  • Target user interfaces.
  • Pressure infrastructure providers.
  • Pursue actions against identifiable contributors.

• Tokenized equities and RWAs
  Equity perps and other RWAs trigger:

  • Securities law questions.
  • Licensing and jurisdictional issues.
  • Potential conflicts with traditional exchanges and regulators.

• Stablecoins and payment rails
  Efforts around USDH and payment integration with firms like Stripe intersect with:

  • Stablecoin regulation.
  • AML/KYC rules.
  • Cross‑border payment frameworks.

Adverse regulatory moves could restrict products, segment user access by geography, or raise compliance costs.

6.5 Ecosystem Concentration and Systemic Risk

Concentration of TVL and activity also matters:

• Protocol failure contagion
  A failure in Kinetiq, HyperLend, Morpho, or similar:

  • Could force liquidations and losses across integrated protocols.
  • Would damage confidence in the broader ecosystem.

• Perp‑centric exposure
  With most revenue and usage tied to perps, a severe market dislocation or breakdown in the risk engine could have outsized consequences.

• Stablecoin dependence
  Heavy reliance on USDC exposes Hyperliquid to:

  • Centralized issuer risk.
  • Blacklisting or regulatory actions.
  • Depegging scenarios.

Greater diversification in collateral, protocols, and revenue streams will be important to reduce systemic fragility.

7. Scenario Analysis: Bull, Base, and Bear Paths

The current state of Hyperliquid allows for several broad trajectories, without assigning probabilities or specific price targets.

7.1 Bull Scenario: Default On‑Chain Exchange Layer

In the bullish path:

• Open interest dominance holds or grows
  Hyperliquid maintains or expands its ≈62% share of decentralized perp open interest as the overall market grows.

• HIP‑3 markets proliferate
  Dozens or hundreds of high‑quality HIP‑3 markets emerge, including deep equity, commodity, and index perps. Market deployers build durable, profitable businesses.

• HyperEVM becomes a top‑tier DeFi hub
  HyperEVM TVL continues to rise as:

  • Kinetiq, HyperLend, Morpho, and Felix expand.
  • New primitives (native stablecoins, options, restaking) take root.
  • Unique products emerge from direct integration with HyperCore.

• USDH gains real share
  USDH attains meaningful usage, internalizing more of the stablecoin yield inside the ecosystem.

• Regulatory clarity and institutional uptake
  Clear rules allow on‑chain derivatives and RWAs to flourish, and institutions adopt Hyperliquid for tokenized products and hedging.

Hyperliquid becomes the default on‑chain execution and risk layer across both crypto‑native and traditional assets.

7.2 Base Scenario: Strong Niche Player Under Heavy Competition

In a more moderate outcome:

• Leadership in open interest, shared volume
  Hyperliquid remains the main venue for perp open interest but splits flow with Aster, Lighter, and others. Traders multi‑home across several platforms.

• Steady DeFi growth
  HyperEVM TVL grows, but not explosively:

  • Existing pillars remain strong.
  • New protocols launch but face stiff competition from other chains.
  • Liquidity is healthy but not dominant.

• Selective HIP‑3 success
  A subset of HIP‑3 markets gain traction, especially in familiar categories like major equities and indices, while more exotic assets see limited use.

• Partial USDH uptake
  USDH captures some share, but USDC remains the main stablecoin.

• Manageable regulatory friction
  Some constraints or region‑specific issues arise, but core products remain accessible in major markets.

Hyperliquid stays a leading derivatives‑centric DeFi ecosystem, but not an unchallenged hegemon.

7.3 Bear Scenario: Security Incidents, Regulation, and Competitive Erosion

In a bearish path, several negatives coincide:

• Major security or risk failure
  A serious exploit or risk engine breakdown causes large user losses, eroding trust and prompting capital flight.

• Regulatory clampdown
  Key jurisdictions tighten rules on on‑chain perps and RWAs, restricting access and chilling institutional interest.

• Competitive leapfrogging
  Rivals match or exceed Hyperliquid’s performance and product range while offering stronger incentives or smoother UX.

• Tokenomics strain
  Large unlocks, lower trading revenues, and reduced buybacks push sustained pressure on HYPE, weakening staking and HIP‑3 economics.

• Ecosystem stagnation
  TVL stalls or declines; developers prioritize other chains; liquidity scatters; composability benefits fade.

In that world, Hyperliquid risks sliding into the background as one of several mid‑tier perp venues or, in a worst case, seeing its relevance sharply reduced.

8. Conclusion and Outlook

Hyperliquid’s 2025 trajectory shows how a high‑performance trading engine can become the nucleus of a broader on‑chain financial system.

Key points:

• Architectural advantage
  The unified HyperCore + HyperEVM state, backed by HyperBFT consensus, delivers CEX‑style trading with on‑chain composability. That design remains its primary technical edge.

• Ecosystem maturation
  HyperEVM’s rapid, largely organic TVL growth and the emergence of Kinetiq, HyperLend, Morpho, Felix, and HIP‑3 markets show that capital and builders are willing to commit to this stack.

• Leadership with real headwinds
  Hyperliquid still leads in decentralized perp open interest, but faces sharp competition on volume from Aster, Lighter, and others. Its response-through product design, ecosystem development, and selective incentives-will largely shape its long‑term position.

• Strategic bets on HIP‑3 and RWAs
  Early success with equity perps and permissionless markets hints at a path toward becoming a generalized on‑chain exchange infrastructure, rather than a purely crypto‑native perp venue.

• Serious risk profile
  Security, token unlock dynamics, regulatory scrutiny, and ecosystem concentration are all non‑trivial. Managing them is as important as any new technical feature.

Hyperliquid now sits at an inflection point. It has the architecture, user base, and protocol layer to become a foundational piece of on‑chain finance across asset classes. Whether it gets there will depend on how well it deepens its ecosystem, maintains security and trust, and competes in a rapidly evolving and increasingly regulated landscape.